Harman v. City of Omaha

CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
Citation17 Neb. 548,23 N.W. 503
PartiesHARMAN v. CITY OF OMAHA.
Decision Date12 May 1885

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error from Douglas county.

G. W. Ambrose, for plaintiff.

W. J. Connell, for defendant.

MAXWELL, J.

The plaintiff alleges in her petition that she is the owner of the south 107 feet of lot 5, in block 248, in the city of Omaha, which is situate on the north side of Pierce street, and between Eighth and Ninth streets in said city; that she has “two dwelling-houses, of five rooms each, and other usual and ordinary improvements, outhouses, and the like,” on said lot, all of the value of $1,200; that said houses were erected before the grade of Pierce street was established; that in the year 1878, the defendant established the grade of Pierce street, and in 1883, sought to work said street to the grade, and in doing so “filled in the earth in front of said houses and lot 5 feet, and compelled the plaintiff to erect a plank barricade in front of said premises in order to keep the earth away from said houses, at a cost of $100;” that, in order to render said houses habitable, the plaintiff will be compelled to fill said lot to the level of the street, and has sustained other damages thereby, in all to the amount of $1,600; that at no time, either before or subsequent to said grading, has she been allowed or tendered any compensation for said injury, etc. A demurrer to the petition was sustained in the court below, and the action dismissed.

The question presented is the right of a lot-owner, who has erected buildings thereon before the grade was established, to recover damages for injury sustained by him by raising the street to his injury in front of his property. At common law an injury of this kind is not actionable. And such was the rule in this state prior to the adoption of the constitution of 1875. Nebraska City v. Lampkin, 6 Neb. 27. Section 21 of the bill of rights of the constitution of 1875 is as follows: “The private property of no person shall be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor.” The above section, without the words “or damaged,” was in our former constitution. Section 13, art. 1, Const. 1866. The words “or damaged,” therefore, were, without doubt, added to the section for the purpose of extending a remedy to the owner of the property in all cases where his property has been damaged by the work done. Nor is the right to recover restricted to such injuries as were designated torts at common law. The question is not whether the work was skillfully and carefully performed or not; because, if the property of the party has been damaged by the work, however skillfully and carefully performed, he is entitled to compensation for such damages. In other words, the right to recover does not depend upon the care or skill, or the want of it, with which the work was performed, but whether the work, if carefully and skillfully done, has injuriously affected or damaged the plaintiff's property. If so, he is entitled to recover. If the work is unskillfully or carelessly performed, so that additional damages result from that cause, it is probable that a recovery can be had therefor; but that question is not before the court.

In Reardon v. City of San Francisco, 6 Pac. Rep. 325, 326, the supreme court of California say: We cannot say that the convention, inserting in the constitution of this state the word ‘damaged,’ in the connection in which it is found, and the people in ratifying the work of the convention, intended to limit the effect of this word to cases where the party injured already had a remedy to recover compensation. They engaged in no such empty and vain work. It was intended to give a remedy as well where one existed before as where it did not; to superadd to the guaranty found in the former constitution of this state, and nearly all other states, a guaranty against damage where none previously existed.” These remarks are applicable to this state. Our former constitution required compensation to be made for property taken. If, however, no portion of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • McGrew v. Granite Bituminous Paving Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 February 1913
    ...... upon the contractor, but is that of the city alone. Keith. v. Bingham, 100 Mo. 300; Springfield v. Baker, . 56 Mo.App. 637; Hickman v. ...Lewis Em. Domain (2 Ed.), sec. 232a; City. v. Straight, 20 Colo. 13; Schaller v. Omaha, 23. Neb. 325; Omaha v. Kramer, 25 Neb. 492; Boyd v. U.S. 116 U.S. 616; Searle v. Lead, 10 ......
  • Hadley v. Corey, 30620.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 28 November 1939
    ......Maher, 15 Neb. 1, 16 N.W. 902. See, also, Harmon v. City of Omaha, 17 Neb. 548, 23 N.W. 503, 52 Am.Rep. 420.        [3] But, ‘in order to ......
  • Steeves v. Nispel, 29803.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 16 April 1937
    ......First Nat. Bank of Falls City v. Edgar, 65 Neb. 340, 91 N.W. 404.         On the state of facts before us, appellee ...Maher, 15 Neb. 1, 16 N.W. 902. See, also, Harmon v. City of Omaha, 17 Neb. 548, 23 N.W. 503, 52 Am.Rep. 420.         But, “in order to ascertain the proper ......
  • Steeves v. Nispel
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 16 April 1937
    ...... thereof. First Nat. Bank of Falls City v. Edgar, 65. Neb. 340, 91 N.W. 404. . .          On the. state of facts before ... remedy.' " Clother v. Maher, 15 Neb. 1, 16. N.W. 902.See, also, Harmon v. City of Omaha, 17 Neb. 548, 23 N.W. 503, 52 Am.Rep. 420. . .          But,. " in order to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT